Of DEI and Denials: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Texas' 88th Legislative Session


Journal website: http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/  Manuscript received: 29/2/2024 
Facebook: /EPAAA  Revisions received: 1/7/2024 
Twitter: @epaa_aape  Accepted: 16/10/2024 

 

education policy analysis 
archives 
A peer-reviewed, independent,  
open access, multilingual journal  
 
 
 
 
 
  

 Arizona State University 

 
Volume 32 Number 77  December 3, 2024 ISSN 1068-2341 

 

 

Of DEI and Denials: A Critical Discourse Analysis of 

Texas’ 88th Legislative Session 

Lauren Mena Shook 

The University of Texas at Austin  

United States  

& 

Lizeth I. Lizárraga-Dueñas 

The University of Texas at Austin  

United States  

 
Citation: Shook, L. M., & Lizárraga-Dueñas, L. I. (2024). Of DEI and denials: A critical discourse 
analysis of Texas’ 88th legislative session. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 32(77). 
https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.32.8590 
 
Abstract: Emerging literature on anti-CRT, anti-DEI efforts in education suggest that these 
attacks represent a rearticulation of racial ideologies that seek to contain racial progress. Although 
crafting anti-CRT and anti-DEI policies is primarily conducted through discourse, few studies 
explore the specific discursive mechanisms used to justify these efforts as racially neutral. Using 
critical discourse analysis and insights from color-evasive racism, we examine the discourse of 
public hearings on anti-DEI and anti-CRT bills introduced in Texas’ 88th legislative session. We 
find that policy actors employ denials of racism and articulate three of the four frames of color-
evasive racism. By examining the role of racism denial in legitimizing anti-CRT and anti-DEI 
efforts in higher education policy, we hope to attend to the specific roles of discourse in 
legitimizing racist policies and actions in education more broadly. 
Keywords: critical discourse analysis; legislative process; denials of racism; anti-DEI legislation; anti-CRT 
legislation 

http://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/
https://doi.org/10.14507/epaa.32.8590


Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 32 No. 77  2 

 
De DEI y denegaciones: Un análisis crítico del discurso de la 88.ª sesión legislativa de 
Texas 
Resumen: La literatura emergente sobre los esfuerzos contra la teoría crítica de la raza (CRT) y 
contra la diversidad, equidad e inclusión (DEI) en la educación sugiere que estos ataques 
representan una rearticulación de ideologías raciales con el objetivo de contener el progreso racial. 
Aunque la creación de políticas anti-CRT y anti-DEI se realiza principalmente a través del 
discurso, pocos estudios exploran los mecanismos discursivos específicos utilizados para justificar 
estos esfuerzos como racialmente neutrales. En nuestra investigación, utilizamos el análisis crítico 
del discurso y la teoría del racismo evasivo para examinar el discurso de las audiencias públicas 
sobre las propuestas de leyes anti-DEI y anti-CRT presentadas en la 88.ª sesión legislativa de 
Texas. A través de nuestro análisis, encontramos que los actores políticos emplean negaciones del 
racismo y articulan tres de los cuatro marcos del racismo evasivo. Al examinar la función de estas 
negaciones en la legitimación de los esfuerzos anti-CRT y anti-DEI en la política de educación 
superior, buscamos destacar las funciones específicas del discurso en la legitimación de políticas y 
acciones racistas en la educación en general.  
Palabras-clave: análisis crítico del discurso; proceso legislativo; negación del racismo; legislación 
anti-DEI; legislación anti-CRT 
 
De DEI e negações: Uma análise crítica do discurso da 88ª sessão legislativa do Texas 
Resumo: A literatura emergente sobre teoria racial anticrítica (CRT) e esforços antidiversidade, 
equidade e inclusão (DEI) na educação sugere que esses ataques representam um rearticulação de 
ideologias raciais com o objetivo de conter o progresso racial. Embora a criação de políticas anti-
CRT e anti-DEI seja feita principalmente através do discurso, poucos estudos exploram os 
mecanismos discursivos específicos utilizados para justificar estes esforços como neutros em 
termos raciais. Em nossa pesquisa, utilizamos a análise crítica do discurso e a teoria do racismo 
evasivo para examinar o discurso da audiência pública sobre propostas de leis anti-DEI e anti-CRT 
introduzidas na 88ª sessão legislativa do Texas. Através da nossa análise, descobrimos que os 
atores políticos empregam negações do racismo e articulam três dos quatro quadros de racismo 
evasivo. Ao examinar o papel destas negações na legitimação dos esforços anti-CRT e anti-DEI na 
política de ensino superior, procuramos destacar as funções específicas do discurso na legitimação 
de políticas e ações racistas na educação em geral. 
Palavras-chave: análise crítica do discurso; processo legislativo; negação do racismo; legislação 
anti-DEI; legislação anti-CRT  
 
 

Of DEI and Denials: A Critical Discourse Analysis of Texas’ 88th 
Legislative Session 

Since September 2020, 18 states have introduced policies prohibiting the teaching of critical 
race theory (CRT; CRT Forward, n.d.) and 23 states have introduced bills prohibiting diversity, 
equity, and inclusion (DEI) programs (CRT Forward, n.d.). Sixteen states have successfully passed 
bills banning CRT and DEI in higher education specifically (CRT Forward, n.d.). Rather than 
representing localized efforts, the widespread nature of these bills reflects a national network of 
policy actors seeking to dismantle curriculum and programs that invite consideration of structural 
inequality (Burch, 2023). The push against curriculum and programs that discuss the systemic nature 
of racism in America originated in K-12 (Knox, 2023), but quickly extended into higher education. 

Texas is no exception. When Texas Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick was sworn into office 
on January 17, 2023, he pledged to ban the teaching of CRT in publicly funded higher education 



Of DEI and denials  3 
 

(Bradner, 2023). These remarks were made about one year after calling the University of Texas’s 
professors “looney Marxist[s]… poison[ing] the minds of young students” (Dan Patrick 
[@DanPatrick], 2022) and pledging to end tenure to stop professors from “indoctrinating” college 
students (McGee, 2022). When Patrick announced his higher education priority bills for the 88th 
legislative session, he prioritized bills that oppose CRT, defund diversity equity and inclusion 
programming, and end tenure (Lieutenant Governor Dan Patrick, 2023). 

Despite the racialized dimensions of bills, Republican policymakers across the nation have 
largely justified these bills on the basis of anti-discrimination and personal liberties rather than any 
intention to discourage discussions of racism or impact diversity on college campuses (Gretzinger & 
Hicks, 2024). These justifications are similar to arguments made by right wing politicians and 
activists who sought to ban the 1619 Project from K-12 public schools (e.g. McGee, 2021), ban 
books from libraries (e.g.. Meehan et al., 2023), and prohibit the supposed teaching of CRT in public 
school districts (e.g. ,Schwartz, 2023). This is especially notable at the K-12 level where “critical race 
theory” was used as a semantic proxy (Beaver & Stanley, 2023) for any school programs perceived as 
a threat (e.g., Sawchuk, 2021). These conflicts over curriculum, classroom materials, staff training, 
and allowable conversations locate education as a central place of ideological conflict (Natanson et 
al., 2022; Superville, 2023). Understanding the function of denials of racism and their work in 
legitimating ideology, then, is important for the education field at large and not just for policy actors 
or higher education stakeholders.  

In this study, we situate denials of racism (van Dijk, 1992) and color evasive racism (Bonilla-
Silva, 2017) within a critical discourse framework for understanding the discursive reproduction of 
power (van Dijk, 2015). The study contributes to emerging work on anti-CRT and anti-DEI pushes 
at the K-12 and higher education level. We additionally situated our study within a broader body of 
literature on racial backlash in education. By examining the role of racism denial in legitimizing anti-
CRT and anti-DEI efforts in higher education policy, we attend to the specific roles of discourse in 
legitimizing racist policies and actions.  

This study addressed the following research questions. In the discourse of the introductory 
hearings for legislation prohibiting CRT and DEI in Texas higher education,  

1. How do state policy actors employ denials of racism in introducing two race-
related higher education bills in the Texas 88th legislative session? 

2. How, if at all, do denials of racism reinforce color-evasive racism? 
3. How are denials of racism addressed and resisted by policy actors? 

Conceptual Framework 

Our study is anchored in critical theories concerning racist ideology. We specifically attend 
to discursive acts of denials of racism (van Dijk, 1992) and manifestations of color-evasive racist 
ideology1 (Bonilla-Silva, 2017; Annamma et al., 2017). Critical discourse analysis and color-evasive 
racism frameworks share assumptions of how contemporary racism functions. Bonilla-Silva (2017) 
conceives of color-evasive racism as an adaptive articulation of racist ideology, with language playing 
a role in the legitimation of that ideology. Van Dijk (e.g. 1992, 2011, 2015) and other critical 
discourse analysts (e.g. Paltridge & Hyland, 2012; Reisigl & Wodak, 2000; Wodak & Meyer, 2001) 
understand discourse to be actively involved in creating, maintaining, and transmitting ideologies.  

Van Dijk’s (2015) schema of the discursive reproduction of power (Figure 1) offers helpful 
insights into how discourse, ideology, and power relate to one another and help guide the 

                                                           
1 Following Annamma and colleagues (2017), we choose to utilize the term color-evasive to avoid ableist 
connotations implied by the original terminology. 



Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 32 No. 77  4 

 
interpretation of our findings. The existing social structure, consisting of powerful groups, 
institutions, and symbolic elites, control the contexts (e.g. setting, participants, speech acts) of 
communicative events. In the case of our study, the legislature controls the setting and processes 
guiding the discourse, and the Republican majority controls the invited witnesses. The discourse of 
these events, including specific discursive acts like denials of racism, influence personal and social 
cognition. These cognitions then reinforce the existing social structure and reproduce power 
imbalances. Within this model, discursive strategies are a key reflection and contributor to the 
mental models (“frames” in Bonilla-Silva’s conception) by which people interpret information and 
inform their actions. Using this conceptual framework, we understand denials of racism to be one of 
many social actions maintaining color-evasive racist ideology and reproducing hierarchies of racial 
domination. 

Insights from the ideology we are studying, color-evasive racism (Annamma et al., 2017; 
Bonilla-Silva, 2017), guide this research in the development of research questions and in the 
analytical plan. The theory of color-evasive racism maintains that since the Civil Rights movement, 
efforts to enact racist policies, speech, and behavior use the guise of race-neutrality to disguise 
intent. As a result, racist intentions and policy outcomes became more difficult to clearly identify by 
the public, and racism is more easily legitimated as normal and natural. This normalization of racism 
serves to reinforce the broader system and structures of white supremacy.  
 
Figure 1 
 

The Discursive Reproduction of Power 

 
Note: Developed from van Dijk (2015). 

 



Of DEI and denials  5 
 

In both its original conception (Bonilla Silva, 2017) and later rearticulation (Annamma et al., 
2017), color-evasiveness is understood to be a racial ideology, meaning that it is a set of cultural 
beliefs and constructed meanings which explain existing racial social structures. Bonilla-Silva (2017) 
argued that color-evasiveness has become the dominant racial ideology of the general population in 
the United States and can be identified in both right and left leaning political parties. Color 
evasiveness has been empirically observed in the discourse of progressive media (Bell, 2019). The 
color-evasiveness framework works harmoniously with critical discourse analysis, as Bonilla-Silva 
(2017) specifically notes language and communication play a key role in the legitimation of racial 
ideology. 

One component of this theory is the “frames” of color-evasive racism, the sense-making 
mechanisms of racial ideology. These are comparable to mental models described by van Dijk (2015) 
in his theorization of discourse and ideology. Bonilla-Silva (2017) conceptualized the four frames of 
color-evasive racism as the predictable ways in which white people make sense of race and racism in 
a supposedly “post-racial” world. The most important of these frames is abstract liberalism, which 
Bonilla-Silva considers to be foundational to the new racial ideology. Abstract liberalism pulls 
together ideas from political liberalism and economic liberalism to explain racial outcomes. This 
frame is marked by strong commitments to ideas of meritocracy and equal treatment, which are then 
used to oppose equity efforts on the basis of being “unfair” (e.g. “Students of color should not 
receive unfair advantage in college admissions”). The second frame, naturalization, explains racist 
outcomes as the results of natural occurrences (e.g. “Black people don’t live in this neighborhood 
because they like to be around people like themselves”). The third frame, cultural racism, 
emphasizes the supposedly deficient cultures of people of color as explanations for their social 
standing (e.g. “Mexican parents do not value higher education”). The final frame, minimization of 
racism, downplays the role of race in society (e.g. “Racism is not as bad as it used to be”). 

Van Dijk (1992) argues that denials of racism are among the defining features of discourse in 
contemporary racism. Discursive strategies used to deny racism serve an essential function of 
legitimating racist ideology while also demonstrating that tolerance is understood to be an important 
social norm. These denials function to protect the dominant group and frame anti-racists as the truly 
racist actors. Additionally, denials of racism serve as a containment strategy to control resistance. 
These strategies normalize and legitimate racist policymaking decisions and reinforce white 
supremacist structures.  

The specific strategies explored in this work emerge from van Dijk’s (1992) examination of 
news media and parliamentary discourse in the United States and Europe. These forms of denial, as 
operationalized by van Dijk (1992), are rarely explicit denials of racial intent. Rather, they are 
discursive maneuvers which distance speakers from responsibility for racial intent. This less direct 
approach is consistent with the indirect ways in which color-evasiveness manifests in discourse, 
through vague language operating as “rhetorical shields” and “discursive buffers” (Bonilla-Silva, 
2017, p. 81). 

Using this conceptual framework, we seek to understand the discursive mechanisms by 
which racism was enacted and resisted in legislative discourse on anti-CRT and anti-DEI bills. 
Accordingly, we seek to understand how denials of racism were employed in Texas’s legislative 
discourse on anti-DEI and anti-CRT bills, identify how these discursive choices reinforced color-
evasive racism, and how policy actors resisted both denials of racism and color-evasive racist 
ideologies. 



Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 32 No. 77  6 

 

Prior Literature 

This study builds upon these frameworks and contributes to the history of reactive racist 
policies in U.S. education. It particularly adds to emerging research on the backlash against critical 
race theory, diversity equity and inclusion programs, and other elements of higher education which 
are perceived as benefitting minoritized groups. Several scholars studying this backlash have tied 
these efforts to patterns of racial progress throughout U.S. history (Chapman, 2023; Harper, 2023; 
Solorzano, 2023). As Derrick Bell (2018) observed, minoritized populations struggle to achieve 
“temporary ‘peaks of progress,’” with advances fading as racial dynamics adapt to uphold white 
dominance (p. 373). These peaks of progress, likewise, can only be adopted when converging with 
white interests and where compatible with “The American ‘civil religion’” of abstract liberalism (p. 
254). Racial progress, like the emancipation of enslaved Black people, is swiftly followed by racial 
backlash, like Jim Crow policies.  

Racial backlash is a key feature in the scholarship on color-evasive ideology following gains 
from the Civil Rights movement. Omi and Winant’s (2014) foundational work on racial formation in 
the United States identifies color-evasiveness as one of the key mechanisms of racial backlash. They 
argue that strategies aimed at containing racial equality in the post-Civil Rights era followed a clear 
sequence. First code words were used to channel white anger and stoke racial fear. Secondly, 
accusations of reverse racism were used to deracialize discrimination, thus absolving white people of 
responsibility and delegitimizing race-based reform policies as inherently discriminatory. Finally, 
color-evasive rhetoric foregrounded American nationalist identity and unity across racial lines. 
Although Omi & Winant (2014) focus their work on broader U.S. racial policies such as the gutting 
of the New Deal, a broad body of scholarship documents similar effects in education.  

Although students of color were largely locked out of higher education through de facto and 
de jure segregation and unequal K-12 schooling (e.g., Donato & Hanson, 2012; Noboa-Rios, 2019), 
evidence of reactionary racist policy is apparent throughout the history of U.S. higher education. For 
example, when a high proportion of Jewish students earned admissions through standardized testing 
in the early 1900s, Ivy League institutions adopted color-evasive policies that excluded Jewish 
students using interviews, leadership measures, and letters of recommendation (Karabel, 2006). 
These admissions policies specifically leveraged aspects of abstract liberalism, such as “merit,” to 
craft color-evasive mechanisms that upheld the dominance of wealthy white protestants. In the post-
Civil Rights era, racial progress has been pushed back through color-evasive policies that weaken 
desegregation efforts (e.g., Justice, 2023) and services for English language learners (e.g., San Miguel 
& Donato, 2009), dismantle ethnic studies curriculums (e.g., Howerton, 2024), and challenge 
affirmative action (e.g., Garces, 2020).  In many of these cases, white hegemony has been protected 
using accusations of reverse racism, fairness and pragmatism, and other racism denial strategies. 

Emerging research suggests that opposition to CRT and DEI in education represents a “new 
face on an old practice” to uphold white supremacy through public education (Miller et al., 2023, p. 
140). Research identifies anti-CRT and anti-DEI efforts as fear-mongering responses to the racial 
reckoning of 2020 following the murder of George Floyd (Harper, 2023; Matias, 2023; Miller et al., 
2023), which reinforce color-evasive ideologies in education (Scussel & Esposito Norris, 2023).  This 
argument seems rather coherent given the public discussion of systemic racism and increase in 
institutional supports for DEI programming following Floyd’s murder (Hernández, 2024). These 
bills are further situated within a decade of efforts to dismantle anti-racist efforts, from the 1776 
Project to the legal narrowing of affirmative action, which have been explained by anxieties over 
growing demographic diversity (Embrick et al., 2020) and racial resentment stirred by white 
economic struggles (Bonilla Silva, 2017), 



Of DEI and denials  7 
 

Research on the racial dimensions of discourse in these legislative battles has demonstrated 
in the importance of language to understanding these bills. Linguists have noted the political utility 
of the phrase “critical race theory” as a political weapon (Beaver & Stanley, 2023). In a critical 
discourse examination of anti-CRT bills, Jones and Briscoe (2023) found that the text of the bills 
uphold white dominance. In a similar examination of 53 bills and 26 statements of supporters of 
anti-CRT bills, Hazel (2023) found that discourse models based on neoliberalism, nationalism, color-
evasiveness, and law as morality were operationalized to justify the bills and deny systemic racism. 
Accordingly, we seek to investigate the role of racism denial as a discursive act in the maintenance of 
racist ideology during hearings laying out the intent of the bills. A deeper understanding of the role 
of denials provides insight into how current policy work upholds and perpetuates ideologies of racial 
domination. 

Study Design 

Methods 

This study uses critical discourse analysis (CDA) along with code co-occurrence to 
investigate our research questions. CDA interrogates the role of discourse in both reflecting and 
reproducing social inequality, and it illuminates the ideologies shaping and shaped by discourse 
(Wodak & Meyer, 2001). CDA is highly relevant to the study of policy issues, particularly in 
legislative contexts in which ideologies actively contest (van Dijk, 1992). CDA has been utilized to 
study higher education policy issues concerning the production and reproduction of racism in policy 
contexts (e.g. Felix & Trinidad, 2020) and is being used to study the recent wave of legislative texts 
banning CRT (Hazel, 2023; Jones & Briscoe, 2023).  

Key Linguistic Terminology 

We seek to write for an education policy audience and recognize that this audience may not 
be well versed in linguistics. Given our methodology, we will refer to terms derived from linguistics. 
The most important terms for understanding our work are described below. 

Discourse 

In keeping with the theoretical and methodological roots of critical discourse analysis, we 
conceptualize discourse in this paper as both language-in-use and social action (van Dijk, 1997). As 
language in use, discourse reflects social, political, and cultural formations. As a political action, 
discourse is language shaping social, political, and cultural orders. Discourse as a social action does 
ideological work, meaning that the language in use not only conveys meaning but also transmits 
ideologies (Fairclough & Wodak, 1997; van Dijk, 1997; Wodak & Meyer, 2001). Importantly, 
discourse is just one social practice among many, and accordingly needs to be understood alongside 
other social actions (Given, 2008). 

Presuppositions 

Presuppositions refer to the implicit assumptions and background information that speakers 
and listeners take for granted during communication (Beaver & Stanley, 2023). These assumptions 
are embedded in language and are a powerful tool for influencing attitudes and beliefs without 
making explicit assertions. For example, questions with presuppositions can introduce information 
subtly, and people often interpret them charitably, accepting the implied assumptions as true without 
significant reflection (Beaver & Stanley, 2023). Presuppositions are crucial in political rhetoric and 
propaganda, allowing speakers to subtly bias questions and affect hearers' attitudes without overtly 



Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 32 No. 77  8 

 
stating their intentions. They also reflect the collective beliefs and ideologies of a community of 
practice, shaping the way political discourse is perceived and understood (van Dijk, 2015). In 
essence, presuppositions are a hidden but influential force in political discourse, shaping public 
opinion and ideologies. 

Data Collection 

Data for this study was drawn from a larger project using ethnographic work focused on 
educational bills introduced during Texas’ 88th legislative session in 2023. The questions for this 
project were developed from ethnographic field notes, but we draw our data from transcripts of the 
Texas Senate subcommittee hearings in which these bills were introduced. These hearings included 
discourse from senators, invited witnesses, and members of the public, though our analysis is 
restricted to the senators and invited witnesses (Table 1). Texas Senate Bills 16 and 17 were chosen 
as they relate to how race is taught in higher education instruction, programming, or professional 
training and given that the bills were among Lt. Governor Dan Patrick’s legislative priorities 
(Lieutenant Governor of Texas Office, 2023) .  
 
Table 1 

Speakers Present in the Anti-CRT and Anti-DEI Hearings 

Hearing  Speaker  Speaker Role Speaker Affiliation 

Both  Sen. Brandon Creighton Chair Texas Senate (R) 

 Sen. Mayes Middleton Vice-Chair Texas Senate (R) 

 Sen. Phil King Sub-committee member Texas Senate (R) 

 Sen. Drew Springer Sub-committee member Texas Senate (R) 

 Sen. Royce West Sub-committee member Texas Senate (D) 

Anti-CRT Dr. Carol Swain Invited witness Representing Self 

Anti-DEI Dr. Ben Carson Invited witness Representing Self 

 Sheryl Sylvester Invited witness Texas Public Policy 
Foundation 

 Adam Kissel Invited witness The Heritage Foundation 

 Dr. Richard Johnson Invited witness Texas Public Policy 
Foundation 

 Sen. Boris L. Miles Asked to be present Texas Senate (D) 

 Sen. José Menéndez Asked to be present Texas Senate (D) 

 
S.B. 16 (hereafter the anti-CRT bill) proposed new language for the purpose of higher 

education in the Texas education code and prohibited compelling students “to adopt a belief that 
any race, sex, or ethnicity or social, political, or religious belief is inherently superior to any other 
race, sex, ethnicity, or belief.” S.B. 17 (hereafter the anti-DEI bill) prohibited institutions from 
requiring diversity statements for admissions or hiring purposes, and disbanded DEI offices and 
personnel. These bills directly relate to race as Dan Patrick indicated their intent was to prohibit the 
teaching of critical race theory (CRT) and the use of diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies in 
public higher education. We use our ethnographic work from S.B. 18, designed to eliminate tenure 
in public higher education, at times to provide context to our study of the anti-DEI and anti-CRT 
bills. The text of the anti-tenure bill does not relate explicitly to race but was tied to the teaching of 



Of DEI and denials  9 
 

CRT by Dan Patrick (McGee, 2022) and by state senators during initial hearings when the bill was 
introduced.  

At least one member of the research team was present at all Senate subcommittee hearings 
introducing these bills as well as at the House committee hearings when the bills were handed off 
for consideration. Additionally, both researchers were engaged with the legislative session from 
March 2023 to June 2023. We each assisted different advocacy organizations at the state capital for 
the legislative session, met with legislators and their staff members in our personal and professional 
capacities, and attended strategy meetings led by state-level and national coalitions. We took 
extensive ethnographic field notes on the discourse and social dynamics of the hearings as well as on 
outside context involving legislators, their staff members, and advocacy groups. After each hearing, 
we recorded our jottings and reflections (Emerson et al., 2011), which is where our observations on 
the denials of racism and color-evasiveness first originated. 

In addition to ethnographic notes generated during these hearings, we created transcripts 
from recordings found in the Texas State Senate video archives (The Texas Senate, n.d.). We used 
an AI transcription service and edited the transcripts by hand for accuracy. In total, we transcribed 
and analyzed 157 minutes of discourse between invited witnesses and senators. We do not analyze 
the text of the bills but rather the discourse occurring about the bills during these hearings.  

Data Analysis 

In this paper, we use CDA to analyze the transcripts of the Senate Subcommittee on Higher 
Education’s hearings in which the bills are introduced, intent is discussed, expert witnesses are 
interviewed, and public testimony is heard. Although we only analyze two hearings in this paper, this 
focus allows us to create a rich case study focused on a bounded setting (Brantlinger et al., 2005). 
This focus allows us to study a particular aspect of a complex phenomenon (Newman & Houchins, 
2018), without necessarily being generalizable to all state-level educational bills with a focus on race 
(Onwuegbuzie & Collins, 2017).  

We coded and analyzed the hearings based on an analytical plan using van Dijk’s (1992) 
discursive strategies for the denials of racism and Bonilla-Silva’s (2017) four frames of color-evasive 
racism. Discursive strategies include 1) positive self-presentation, 2) counterattack, 3) moral 
blackmail, 4) subtle denials, 5) mitigation, and 6) defense and offense. Examples of coded denials 
may be found in Table 2.  The four frames of color-evasive racism include 1) naturalization, 
meaning making racism appear normal and natural, 2) cultural racism, meaning ascribing racialized 
outcomes to cultural deficits, 3) minimization of racism, implying that racism is irrelevant, and 4) 
abstract liberalism, meaning holding strong commitments to ideas of race neutrality and meritocracy. 
Examples of coded frames may be found in Table 3. 

We coded hearing transcripts using a mixed methods data analysis software and a hybrid 
approach (Miles et al., 2014). We use deductive coding for research questions 1 & 2, and an 
inductive approach for research question 3. For our deductive codes, we used codes derived from 
our conceptual framework. We coded for denials of racism (van Dijk, 1992) and the four frames of 
color-evasive racism (Bonilla-Silva, 2017).  

After our first pass at coding, we created codes using Reisigl & Wodak’s (2000) discourse 
historical approach for the study of racism and antisemitism. We chose to add these codes to 
enhance validity by ensuring that denials of racism were clearly linked to racist speech or action. 
These codes include five of the six discursive strategies used in the discourse historical approach: 
nomination strategies, predicational strategies, argumentation strategies, and perspectivation 
strategies. The sixth discursive strategy, mitigation, was excluded given that it was already captured 



Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 32 No. 77  10 

 
under the mitigation code from the denials of racism. These strategies identify how individuals or 
groups are discursively constructed, evaluated, and included or excluded. 

 
Table 2 

Example Discourse Coded with Denials of Racism 

Codes for Denials of 
Racism 

Example Discourse 

Moral Blackmail (23) 
 
Accusing the opponent of 
censorship or blackmail 

In other words, they're [students are] having to convey things that 
they don't believe in so their grade won't suffer. (Sen. Middleton, 
anti-CRT hearing) 

Counterattack (68) 
 
Attacking those with a contrary 
view 

And I know as a faculty member firsthand, you know what it's like. I 
gave up my tenured position, my tenured position in 2017. Because 
of the changes that I saw taking place on university campuses and 
how hostile it was for conservatives and Christians (Dr. Carol 
Swain, anti-CRT hearing) 

Subtle denials (18) 
 
Presupposing doubt 

Research also shows that DEI efforts are often worthless or 
counterproductive and this is national level research… The concept 
of unconscious bias has largely been debunked. (Adam Kissel, anti-
DEI hearing) 

Fairness & Pragmatism 
(14) 
 
Combination of fairness, 
firmness, and pragmatism as 
justification for racist speech or 
actions 

And we need to prepare people rather than having a situation where 
we have to leapfrog people into a position that they're not ready for. 
(Dr. Ben Carson, anti-DEI hearing) 
 
 

Mitigation (51) 
 
Minimizing actions like down 
toning, using doubt, distance 
markers, or euphemisms  

[A]nybody who's discriminating now on the basis of race is just 
doing it because they're evil person. It's not because of some 
inherent belief, we know better than that at this stage of the game 
(Dr. Ben Carson, anti-DEI hearing). 
 

Nationalist Glorification 
(30) 
 
Placing nation on moral 
pedestal, racism is elsewhere and 
the property of others 

And that's really the intent of your bill here to make sure that we're, 
we're encouraging that free speech in our First Amendment rights 
and all the great things about America (Sen. Middleton, anti-CRT 
hearing).  
 

Positive Self Presentation 
(55) 
 
Presenting self or group as 
tolerant and fair 
 

I think that when you see the contents of the bill, members, you'll 
see that Senate Bill 17 does not harm diversity efforts, but it does 
remove divisive agendas that have been seen to be carried out 
through DEI, units, personnel and certain departments in Texas 
(Sen. Creighton, anti-DEI hearing).  

 



Of DEI and denials  11 
 

We coded at the paragraph level following three questions: 1) What evidence of racism is 
present in the discourse, using Reisigl & Wodak (2000) as a guide? 2) How do policy actors employ 
denials of racism? and 3) What frames of color-evasive racism are apparent in the text? Not all 
paragraphs included codes for each category. Once each hearing was coded, we completed a memo 
for each hearing focusing on the research questions and identifying how coding confirmed, 
extended, or contradicted our ethnographic observations. We met weekly for a total of 9 weeks to 
ensure interrater reliability and to discuss findings. We additionally utilized code co-occurrence 
charts available in our coding software to supplement our findings for research question 2.  

 
Table 3 

Samples of Discourse Utilizing Frames of Color-Evasive Racism 

Codes for Color 
Evasive Racism 

Example Discourse 

Naturalization (8) And if the above is not enough, there is blame placed on white Americans 
for slavery when we know that slavery has been part of the human 
experience since time immemorial. (Dr. Carol Swain, anti-CRT hearing) 

Cultural Racism (0) No discourse coded 

Minimizing Racism 
(26) 

[A]t the end of the day, we actually do start out every, every person is 
given the same 24 hours in a day. Whether we like it or not, whether we 
like it or not. Every person is given the same 24 hours in a day. Now what 
you do with those 24 hours will make all the difference in the world. (Dr. 
Richard Johnson, anti-DEI hearing) 

Abstract Liberalism 
(42) 

So what I think we need to recognize is that merit is important… And I 
don't think Senator West or anybody else would advocate that we put 
people in those positions that are not fully qualified to do them. (Dr. Ben 
Carson, anti-DEI hearing) 

 

Positionality 

We engage in this research from a critical epistemological position. We adopt this 
positioning given the importance which power, marginalization, and stratification play in our 
research questions, conceptual framework, and methods. This epistemological position provides a 
lens which understands the world as intrinsically shaped by power (Capper, 2019). We adopt this 
epistemological position as a personal and political commitment to the marginalized (Ladson-
Billings, 2000), and our work unapologetically stands in solidarity with those most oppressed by 
policy in our state. 

We position ourselves as insider-outsider researchers in the legislative space. Although we 
worked with legislative staff and advocacy groups during the sessions, we experienced the somatic 
toll of hostility in the halls of power as Latina/mixed/Mestiza women engaged in critical 
scholarship. Although our racial and gender identities place us as beneficiaries of DEI efforts, we 
also recognize existing racial dynamics at play in the legislative session for which we have neither the 
lived experience nor trained expertise to fully understand. These dynamics include anti-blackness, 
antisemitism, and transphobia. Although we report on a few of these dynamics in our findings, we 
also recognize our limitations as researchers and encourage future study by scholars well versed in 
appropriate theories.  



Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 32 No. 77  12 

 

Findings 

We found that policy actors supporting the anti-DEI and anti-CRT bills utilized denials of 
racism to maintain abstract liberalism and minimize racism. First, policy actors engage in a multitude 
of denials of racism even while engaging in racist speech. Notably, senators supporting the anti-CRT 
and anti-DEI bills encourage denials of racism from witnesses using presuppositions in their lines of 
questioning. Second, although many types of denials reinforce color-evasive racism in the discourse, 
mitigation plays a notable role in reinforcing the minimization of racism particularly when Black 
witnesses draw on their identities to downplay racism. Additionally, abstract liberalism undergirds 
the argument for banning CRT and DEI, and frequently coincides with nationalist glorification and 
counterattack strategies that frame CRT and DEI as discriminatory. Finally, discursive resistance 
from policy actors primarily focused on making presuppositions explicit. Surfacing presuppositions 
allowed those engaged in resistance to challenge underlying assumptions and reduce harm. 

Denials of Racism in the Legislative Discourse: The Outsized Role of Presupposition 

Denials of racism were frequently employed by policy actors using a variety of different 
discursive strategies. In our coding, we found multiple examples of all seven strategies in our 
codebook across hearings for both the anti-DEI and anti-CRT bills. Although much could be said 
about each of these denials, we focus our findings on differences between how senators and 
witnesses engaged with these denials of racism, particularly as the manifestation was not noted in 
our primary literature. 

In hearings for both the anti-CRT and anti-DEI hearings, senators used presuppositions in 
questioning to indirectly employ denials of racism, while the witnesses engaged with denials of 
racism more directly. Senators’ questions were often laden with presuppositions, meaning that 
notions assumed the discourse between the senators and the responding witnesses. We found that 
senators used these presuppositions to deny racism. One of key goals of denials of racism is to 
distance oneself from any suggestion of racist intent and actions (van Dijk, 1992). By loading 
questions with implicit propositions denying racism, senators increased the distance between 
themselves and the institution of the legislature and the racist actions. This use of presuppositions 
allowed senators to maintain a positive self-presentation and plausible deniability of racist intent or 
action. 

Although presuppositions occur in discourse in a variety of forms (Beaver & Stanley, 2023), 
the senators frequently made use of presuppositions in their questions. Senators used questions that 
were heavily loaded with presuppositions to minimize the relevance of racism. These 
presuppositions functionally served to 1) to prepare the argument response for the witnesses, and 2) 
to provides witnesses an entry into the senators’ notions on the topic. In the following excerpt 
between a senator and an invited witness in the anti-CRT legislative hearing, we underline 
presuppositions and mark counterattack from the invited witness with bolded text. As a reminder, 
counterattack is one of van Dijk’s (1992) denials of racism, which protects the positive presentation 
of self by attacking others. This strategy involves painting those engaged in anti-racism in negative 
terms, in this case, as anti-American Marxists. 

SENATOR CREIGHTON: Dr. Swain, why would CRT be taught overall on our 
college campuses? You mentioned it's widely published and well known that it's 
rooted in Marxist theory. You know, what are the basic tenets of critical race theory?  
DR. CAROL SWAIN: Well, first of all, it's [CRT] been around for a long time. It 
grows out of Cultural Marxism. Many people are familiar with economic Marxism 
associated with Karl Marx... And it has been a philosophy like there are many 
different philosophies that have been taught on college and university campuses. 



Of DEI and denials  13 
 

What's dangerous about it is that it is a theory [emphasized]. It's a theory that 
someone thought up, but it's been taught and implemented as if it was true. And it's 
not based on truth. In fact, it's a conflict model. It cannot bring about racial 
reconciliation and healing. And I think the ultimate goal is to bring down the 
United States if you actually studied Marxism, and what they say about their 
intention.  
 

In the excerpt above, Senator Creighton made the presupposition that CRT is a mainstream theory 
that is taught throughout college campuses regardless of academic discipline, that CRT originates 
from Marxist theory, and that the Marxist origins of CRT are widely known. The witness, Dr. Carol 
Swain, then engages in the discursive strategy of counterattack, labeling CRT and those what use it 
as dangerous and politically violent. Although Senator Creighton did not share his perspective on 
the issue at hand directly, we gain a sense of his sentiment about CRT indirectly due to the 
presuppositions embedded in the questions he asked. The presupposition was used as a mechanism 
for the senator to prepare the argument for the witness. Even if the senator did not share his own 
insight on the topic directly, the witness, Dr. Carol Swain answered the question in a manner that 
indirectly reflected the senator’s beliefs on the topic. By having the witness answer questions that 
were loaded with presuppositions, the senator is also engaging in acts of denying racism but in a 
more circuitous manner. 

In contrast, the witness directly engages in denials of racism through the discursive strategy 
of counterattack. The counterattack in the witness’s statement constructs CRT as a dangerous 
ideology creating racial division in higher education and undermining the future of the United States. 
In other words, the witness enters into the reality presupposed by Senator Creighton and denies 
racism in the current bill by depicting CRT as the prejudicial instigator. 

Another example of how policymakers utilized presuppositions with other witnesses can be 
found in the hearing for the anti-DEI bill. Both senators and witnesses employ denials of racism 
either directly or indirectly. In the following dialogue, we underline presuppositions about DEI 
policies, and we mark discursive strategies in bold which were used to deny racism. 

SENATOR CREIGHTON: Yeah, Adam, I was going to ask you if you know, what's the 
legality of mandating to prospective employees to sign a loyalty oath on equity? Prior to 
being considered for hire?  
ADAM KISSEL: It's very likely unconstitutional. I'm not an attorney, but I'm attorney 
adjacent because of my work. And we again, I, we've, in, from the 1950s on we said, we 
cannot make a professor reveal that they're a member of the Communist Party. Can't 
even really ask about political affiliation in that way because it leads to viewpoint 
discrimination, and we may not like someone's point of view, but that can't be a 
reason for discriminating against someone. So if it's a voluntary statement, that's 
probably not going to be unconstitutional, but within your rights as the legislature to 
enforce. 
 

In the excerpt, we can see how Senator Creighton baked presuppositions in the questions directed 
toward Adam Kissel. Senator Creighton presupposes that DEI policies require “loyalty oaths,” 
meaning a required allegiance to a particular political position as a condition of employment in 
higher education. The presupposition prepares the witness to respond in a reciprocal manner, while 
also creating distance between the senator and Kissel’s counterattack.  

Adam Kissel, the witness, enters the discourse via the presupposition and immediately 
responds to how loyalty oaths, or in this case DEI policies, are unconstitutional. He utilizes two 



Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 32 No. 77  14 

 
denials of racism, counterattack and moral blackmail, to construct DEI policies as an infringement 
of American first amendment rights. Counterattack accuses opponents of discriminatory behavior 
and moral blackmail claims that anti-racists are silencing speech (van Dijk, 1992). The invited 
witness builds the argument by drawing comparisons to the Red Scare. Although the witness frames 
his argument as protecting university professors, the discursive strategy of moral blackmail is being 
utilized to argue that universities are censoring political ideologies on university campuses. This casts 
DEI practitioners as the discriminatory silencing professors’ ideologies and positions the bill’s 
advocates as protectors of American rights. 

In both examples of the dialogue between the senator and the witnesses, the role of 
presuppositions demonstrates how the senator and witnesses engaged with the denials of racism 
using discursive strategies such as counterattack and blackmail. Through the mechanism of 
presuppositions, the senator denied racist intent of both the anti-CRT and anti-DEI bills indirectly, 
while the witnesses directly immersed themselves in the denials of racism.  

Reinforcing Color-Evasive Racist Ideologies 

The primary frames of color-evasive racism which appear in the hearings are abstract 
liberalism and minimizing racism. Although naturalizing racism also appeared a few times 
throughout the hearings (coded 8 times), abstract liberalism and minimizing racism figured 
prominently throughout the hearings (coded 42 and 26 times respectively). Below, we explain how 
denials of racism reinforced these two frames of color-evasive racism and upheld racist ideology and 
action. Our findings here are informed both by our critical discourse analysis and code co-
occurrence.  

Weaponizing Abstract Liberalism 

 We found that abstract liberalism, particularly a hyper-individualistic understanding of 
equality (Bonilla-Silva, 2017), figured prominently in the hearings and in how the bills were 
introduced. As a reminder, this cognitive frame focuses strongly on equality based on individual 
meritocracy. Abstract liberalism was frequently accompanied in the discourse by positive self-
presentation and counterattack. Positive self-presentation presents the speaker, institution, state, or 
nation as fundamentally good, noble, and just (van Dijk, 1992). Counterattack (van Dijk, 1992) is 
used in the discourse to present DEI practitioners and faculty using CRT as the truly discriminatory 
parties. We argue that speakers in these hearings constructed themselves as “good” because they 
held to abstract liberalism, while they used principles of abstract liberalism as the justification for 
counterattack.  

Witnesses in their hearings identified principles of abstract liberalism as a central reason why 
CRT and DEI were problematic. For example, the witnesses in the anti-DEI hearing voiced their 
support of diversity and inclusion, with some caveats, but their full disapproval of equity as a 
concept. Below, we provide a statement from Heritage Foundation representative Adam Kissel 
illustrating the problems witnesses identified with equity. 

ADAM KISSEL: Regarding equity, I wish it were true that it meant fairness and 
treating each individual as he deserves. It doesn’t in practice. Equity means equality 
of outcome by identity group. For example, that means counting outcomes, like 
faculty composition, or graduation rates by race, and claiming that disparate 
outcomes are the result of systemic racism. Then advocating for disparate treatment 
by race to affect the outcomes. In other words, an outcome-based definition of 
equity often leads to unlawful discrimination.  
 



Of DEI and denials  15 
 

In the discourse of the witnesses, the key problem with equity is that it violates the individualism at 
the heart of abstract liberalism. In this speaker’s argument, the key issue is that consideration of 
equality at the level of a group rather than the level of the individual. Seeking racial equity, then, is 
constructed as a precursor to “unlawful discrimination.” 

Illustrating this point, Dr. Richard Johnson used multiple basketball analogies to make 
points about the difference between equity and equality and utilized positive self-presentation and 
counterattack throughout. He argued that the segregated Kentucky basketball team was following an 
"equity model" which determines things based on race, whereas the unsegregated team follows the 
"equality model."  

DR. RICHARD JOHNSON: Kentucky was still following the equity model, 
predetermined based on race all 12 of their players were white. Texas Western model 
was following the equality model is six African American players, four white players 
and two Hispanic players.   
… The battle here is equity, the equity model versus the equality model. The equality 
model has proven to us it has brought us diversity. It has brought us inclusion. It has 
brought us great value in the United States of America.  
 

In this extended analogy, Dr. Richard Johnson makes use of both positive self-presentation and 
counterattack. He compares DEI practitioners to segregationists, discursively constructing DEI 
practitioners as discriminatory, unlawful, and dangerous. He additionally connects the “equality” 
model to those who practiced integration, inclusion, and diversity and who Made America Great. He 
thus argues that those who practice the “equality model” and uphold merit and individualism are on 
the side of people of color. In this example and throughout both hearings, abstract liberalism serves 
as the foundation for identifying “good” and “bad” actors. This positive self-presentation and 
counterattack are used to delegitimize the position of DEI practitioners and construct DEI 
opponents as innocent of discriminatory action. 

Black Witnesses, Mitigation Strategies, and Minimizing Racism 

As a cognitive frame, minimization of racism suggests that discrimination no longer explains 
unequal life outcomes for people of color (Bonilla-Silva, 2014). Perhaps unsurprisingly, we found 
that mitigation was the most common discursive strategy used to minimize racism. In many ways 
this is intuitive as mitigation strategies downplay the effects racism and deflect responsibility from 
dominant groups (van Dijk, 1992). However, we found the specifics of how mitigation is utilized and 
by whom to be particularly striking in these hearings. 

The choice of invited expert witnesses in the anti-CRT and anti-DEI hearings served to 
specifically minimize the role of racism in constructing this legislation. Expert witnesses are 
expressly invited by state legislators. Notably, three of the five witnesses invited to speak in favor of 
banning CRT or DEI practices were Black conservatives. In contrast, SB 18’s (the anti-tenure bill) 
expert witnesses included three white men. This suggests a consciousness about how explicitly race-
related bills would be perceived as racially motivated.  Senator Hughes even leveraged Dr. Carol 
Swain’s life experiences as part of her credibility, introducing her as “a wonderful American success 
story” (Anti-CRT bill hearing). Denials of racism, particularly minimizing the role of racism in 
American life, were delivered for white senators through the discourse of Black witnesses. As noted 
above, senators used presuppositions baked into questions to encourage Black witnesses to engage 
in denials of racism themselves. This further distanced the senators from responsibility for the ideas 
expressed in the discourse and from accusations of racism. 



Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 32 No. 77  16 

 
Black witnesses discursively leveraged their Black identities to minimize racism. In the 

following extracts, we underline phrases where witnesses draw on their identities as Black people 
who experienced Jim Crow, and we mark discursive acts in bold that minimize racism. 

DR. CAROL SWAIN: And I would argue that all of this stuff about America being 
systemically racist, it was systemically racist in 1954 when I was born. I watched that 
system collapse when we passed three major civil rights bills in the 1960s. And so, 
for Black Americans and racial and ethnic minorities, I don't think there could be 
a better time to be alive. (Anti-CRT bill hearing) 
DR. BEN CARSON: Part of the reason I'm so firmly against the DEI agenda is 
because I grew up in a time when real racism did exist, and when inequality truly 
was ingrained in our institutions, but because I saw this America firsthand, I can also 
say that that America is gone. (Anti-DEI bill hearing) 
DR. BEN CARSON: One of the things I think we should point out is that in my 
lifetime, things have changed dramatically in this country, and we should 
acknowledge that. You know, when I was a kid, and a Black person came on 
television, in a non-servile role that was a big deal. You called everybody into the 
living room, “Everybody look. This is really something!” Today in the same lifetime, 
you know, Black admirals and generals and CEOs of Fortune 500 companies 
and heads of foundations. We've had a Black president, Black vice president- 
to say that things have not changed is ridiculous. We have certainly not reached 
nirvana. And what we really need to do, again, is sit down and look at the facts, 
look at the things that work versus the things that don't work and be objective about 
it. (Anti-DEI bill hearing) 
 

In these excerpts, Black witnesses use mitigation strategies to locate racism in America’s past as 
something that does not affect the present. “That America is gone” and the system that upheld 
discrimination “collapse[d]”. The present in contrast is constructed as the best time to be alive for 
people of color, using Black success stories to suggest discrimination could not play a role in life 
outcomes in the present. They distance present experiences of racism from “real racism” through 
casting doubt on whether the experiences are factual, and even suggest that claims of continued 
racism are “ridiculous.” In making these claims, the witnesses pull on their own experiences with 
discrimination to delegitimize the inequality experienced in the present. 

In addition to minimizing present forms of racism, Black witnesses additionally downplayed 
the severity and intensity of the racism of America’s past. In the following excerpts, we bold 
mitigation strategies which minimize racism.  

DR. CAROL SWAIN: But as you mentioned, slavery was you know, it had been in 
existence and was in the mindset and polluted the mindset of so many, because 
it had been an institution that existed from the dawn of time. It's often not 
taught that America was one of the countries that led the effort, along with so 
many other countries in the 1800s, to rid ourselves of it. And that balance it seems 
to be lacking in critical race theory as an example, that only one side of that is the 
case. (Anti-CRT bill hearing) 
DR. BEN CARSON: We aren't trying to hide the past and nobody says our country 
has always done everything right. But we will say that we were founded on noble 
ideals and as a people have continuously worked to live up to them. To say 
otherwise is insulting to black Americans who live under true inequality in the 
Jim Crow era. And it is insulting to white Americans to suggest that they are still 



Of DEI and denials  17 
 

somehow perpetrating this inequality through invisible superstructures today, it is 
insulting to our nation's history to say that we have not worked to overcome 
our past mistakes. And above all, it's insulting to the truth itself. To paint such a 
misleading narrative of our national story. (Anti-DEI bill hearing) 
 

In these excerpts, Dr. Swain and Dr. Carson utilize mitigation strategies to minimize America’s 
relationship to racism. Dr. Swain identifies slavery as a universal feature of human society, having 
“existed from the dawn of time” and in the “mindset of so many,” decreasing America’s 
responsibility in perpetuating race-based chattel slavery. Both witnesses additionally make use of 
nationalist glorification strategies to portray Americans as leaders in securing liberty, actively 
working to live up to “noble ideals.” They both additionally argue critical theories blow racism out 
of proportion. The suggestion that this might still be happening is insulting, misleading, unbalanced, 
unfair. This discourse serves to shift responsibility away from dominant groups, particularly white 
Americans, and minimize the role that slavery and racism played in American history. Notably, 
several other denial strategies appear in this text, including counterattack and nationalist 
glorification.  

The minimization of racism through denials of racism serves to bolster racist speech and 
action. By utilizing Black witnesses, advocates for the anti-CRT and anti-DEI bills weaponized Black 
bodies and discourse to delegitimize the systemic racism combatted by CRT and DEI. They 
discursively construct the theory and programming as unnecessary, irrelevant, ridiculous, and even 
harmful. It likewise invites the listeners to doubt contemporary experiences of racism, particularly of 
Black people. These experiences are portrayed as ridiculous in light of “real racism” and undeserving 
of accountability in either higher education or larger society. 

Discursive Resistance: (Re)Shaping Social Cognition 

Although senators and invited witnesses denied racist intentions behind anti-CRT and anti-
DEI bills, opposing policymakers resisted these denials by uncovering implicit assumptions in the 
discourse. Given that most ideological work in discourse is implicit (van Dijk, 2015), making 
presuppositions and implications explicit also allowed senators to engage with color-evasive racism 
and its concurrent frames. Presuppositions, as previously noted, often shape a shared reality within 
discourse, and they are typically accommodated without the level of awareness typically required for 
other speech acts (Beaver & Stanley, 2023).   

Policymakers opposing the anti-DEI and anti-CRT bills identified these presuppositions, 
made them explicit, and subsequently contested them. While they could not prevent the bills from 
advancing out of committee and eventually becoming law, their discursive efforts limited harm to 
higher education professionals in future litigation and provided evidence of racism for challenging 
the bills in court. We focus our analysis on Senator West, the only committee member opposing the 
bills. Two democratic senators who were not on the committee requested to sit in for the anti-DEI 
hearing but had fewer interactions to analyze. 

Senator West, the lone democrat on the Senate Subcommittee on Higher Education where 
the bills were introduced, challenged implicit assumptions in witness discourse through direct 
questioning. Throughout both hearings, he asked witnesses to explicitly identify how they were 
conceptualizing terms. Below, we provide a few of the most concise examples of this line of 
questioning from Senator West:  

What do you mean when you say stifling of academic freedom? (Anti-CRT bill 
hearing)  
What is your definition of DEI? (Anti-CRT bill hearing)  



Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 32 No. 77  18 

 
What about affinity groups? (Anti-CRT bill hearing)  
So as for your definition then a fraternity is an affinity group? (Anti-CRT bill 
hearing)  
Okay, now what about what's your definition of equity? And is that a bad thing or 
good thing? (Anti-CRT bill hearing)  
 

By asking for definitions, Senator West obtained information about how concepts were being 
defined and the mental models and ideologies underlying the bills. Once these conceptions were 
made explicit, he was able to then challenge them.  

Surfacing presuppositions allowed Senator West to challenge the race-neutral impacts of the 
bills insisted on by the bills’ supporters. When introducing the anti-CRT bill, Senator Hughes 
presented the bill as a neutral effort to ensure freedom of thought with no intended racial 
repercussions. Likewise, Senators Creighton, the bill author for the anti-DEI bill, repeatedly assured 
the committee that, “We all value diversity.” However, Senator West pressed witnesses to voice 
underlying propositions that undermined the purported race-neutral intent of the bills.  

As an example, we provide an abbreviated version of a lengthy exchange between Dr. Carol 
Swain and Senator West on affinity groups. We underline places where Senator West works to bring 
implicit assumptions into the foreground. We bold where those propositions begin to emerge. 
Ellipses in this passage indicate that additional discourse was cut for the sake of brevity. 

SENATOR WEST: Joining an affinity group within itself doesn't keep me from 
being a part of the community. Correct? Is that correct?  
DR. CAROL SWAIN: It depends. What type of affinity group it is.   
SENATOR WEST: Like a fraternity.  
DR. CAROL SWAIN: A fraternity is not the same as, as the groups we're 
talking about.  
… 
SENATOR WEST: So my point is this then as relates to affinity groups, just because 
you're a member of an affinity group doesn't necessarily correlate with you not being 
a member and interested in the entire community. Correct?  
DR. CAROL SWAIN: It shouldn't. Because the whole purpose of integration was 
to bring people together so they can learn from one another.  
…  
SENATOR WEST: And so, what you said that your experience has been, students 
have joined affinity groups don't have any real allegiance to the entire community?  
DR. CAROL SWAIN: That's not what I meant to convey. If that's what you heard.   
SENATOR WEST: That's what I heard, so what do you really mean [crosstalk]  
DR. CAROL SWAIN: [crosstalk] That's not what I want to convey. What I have 
found with, you know, with the group identities on campus that we have now, is 
that a lot of times demands are being made. The group's segregating themselves. 
We have a resegregation. There are some colleges and campuses now where you 
can take course sections with members of your racial and ethnic group.  
 

Through his line of questioning, Senator West surfaced the underlying preoccupation with race as 
the primary issue of concern with group association. Through their exchange, Senator West surfaces 
the opposition’s proposition that racial affinity groups undermine campuses in a way that gender 
affinity groups or academic affinity groups do not. This exchange, as well as an exchange about 
diversity, make clear that the witness opposes programming and instruction that support integration 



Of DEI and denials  19 
 

without assimilation to white norms. Once surfaced, Senator West was able to challenge the 
proposition. 

Likewise, in an exchange during the hearing for the anti-DEI bill, Senator West asked invited 
witnesses for the anti-DEI bill to answer, one by one, whether they support diversity, inclusion, and 
equity in principle. Three of the four witnesses voiced support for diversity, though a witness from 
the Heritage Foundation conceded only support for “viewpoint diversity.” When Senator West 
asked about his support for ethnic diversity, the witness responded, “For what purpose, sir?” 
Although likely unintended (Senator West seemed taken aback in the exchange), Senator West 
surfaced an underlying belief that people of color served no “purpose” and were not essential “for 
the sake of a college thriving.” Senator West’s questioning surfaced underlying racial ideology, but 
perhaps more importantly, broke the taboo of inclusiveness (van Dijk, 1992), which denials of 
racism are intended to avoid. This likely altered how hearers made sense of his arguments and also 
provided evidence of intent for future legal challenges to the bill. Indeed, we were able to hear 
audible gasps and murmuring from members of the public in the room. 

At times, challenges to the implicit assumptions in the discourse pushed back against the 
frames of color-evasive racism. For example, much of the argumentation for the bills relied heavily 
on abstract liberalism. Dr. Richard Johnson’s opening statement against DEI invoked Dr. Martin 
Luther King Jr.’s dream as part of an abstract liberalism argument reifying individualism and merit. 
Further, he later utilized abstract liberalism to compare practitioners of DEI (those following what 
he calls “the equity model”) to segregationists for considering racial groups in assessing outcomes 
instead of judging individual merit in a color-evasive way. Much later in the hearing, Senator West 
referenced the same quote from Dr. King but challenged the idea that color-evasiveness has resulted 
in actual equal opportunity.  

SENATOR WEST: I want to make certain as Dr. King is always - Let's judge a 
person by the content of that character, their merit, okay? But in many instances, and 
help me with this, African Americans, Latinos and others, haven’t been able to even 
get into the room to be considered for jobs. [snaps from audience] Okay? Am I right 
about that?  
 

In this discursive act, Senator West corrected the presuppositions of expert witnesses aligning the 
bill’s supporters with Civil Rights heroes and DEI supporters with segregationists.  

Discussion 

Critical race theorist Derrick Bell (2018) argued that racism can only be delegitimated when 
it is accurately understood in its specifics. Our study sought to understand how denials of racism 
function in a state legislative context, how they reinforce color-evasive racist ideology, and how 
these discursive strategies are challenged and disrupted. Through a critical discourse analysis of 
public hearings for two Texas Senate bills banning critical race theory and diversity, equity, and 
inclusion programs in public higher education, we found that policy actors frequently engaged in 
denials of racism despite engaging in racist speech. Additionally, these discursive strategies were 
used to reinforce color-evasive frames, particularly the minimization of racism and abstract 
liberalism. We focused our analysis of discursive resistance on Senator West, who challenged 
denials of racism by asking witnesses to verbalized implicit propositions in their arguments. 

Our findings appear to be broadly consistent with the few empirical studies of rhetoric 
employed in other states’ anti-CRT and anti-DEI policies for higher education (Hazel, 2023; Jones 
& Briscoe, 2023). Although our frameworks are different, our findings on the use of color-
evasiveness frames mirror the discourse models of color-evasiveness and neoliberalism found by 



Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 32 No. 77  20 

 
Hazel (2023). Like Hazel, we find the important interrelationship between these ideological frames 
and denials of racism. These findings appear to be consistent with historical patterns of racial 
backlash, both generally (Omi & Winant, 2014) and in specific cases of rolling back policies 
perceived as benefitting minoritized students (e.g. Howerton, 2024). Our study contributes an 
example of discursive resistance to anti-CRT and anti-DEI bills and suggests ways to disrupt color-
evasiveness and racism denial. Future research might empirically examine discursive strategies of 
resistance in the policymaking process, in terms of what specific strategies are used as 
countermoves and which strategies create incremental changes in the policymaking process. 

Another contribution of our findings relates to how racism denial manifests in policymaking 
discourse. Departing from van Dijk’s (1992) initial work on denials of racism and Bonilla Silva’s 
(2017) examination of color-evasive rhetoric, our findings highlight how denials of racism can be 
embedded in questioning through implications and presuppositions, further distancing legislators 
from responsibility for racist utterances. Presuppositions in questioning are particularly nefarious 
given the weaponization of Black witnesses observed in our case. By teeing Black witnesses up to 
deliver denials of racism, white senators discursively protect their positive self-presentation and the 
legislature’s legitimacy while minimizing the role of race in the hearings.  

Even within a political moment characterized by increased tolerance for overtly racist 
politics (Embrick et al., 2020), advocates of anti-CRT and anti- DEI legislation use the rhetorical 
shields of racism denial while enacting regressive policies. Our conceptual framework, based on van 
Dijk’s (2015) discursive reproduction of power, offers several insights into why this might occur. 
First, a critical discourse analysis allows us to situate our findings within an understanding that 
ideology is part of social cognition and is socially learned (van Dijk 1992; Wodak & Meyer, 2001). 
With this approach, rhetorical choices, such as the use of denials and color-evasive frames, are best 
understood as reflecting deeply embedded social constructs in American political life rather than 
merely as the choices of individuals.  

Secondly, discourse is understood to be both a performance of ideology and a crucial tool 
for maintaining ideology (van Dijk, 1992). Thus, the denials of racism observed in this study might 
serve to resonate (Beaver & Stanley, 2023) with the primary ideology of policymaking elites--color-
evasiveness--held by members of both major U.S. political parties (Bonilla Silva, 2017). By situating 
anti-DEI and anti-CRT efforts within the accepted sensemaking mechanism of the post-Jim Crow 
era, senators and invited witnesses distance these bills from overt racism even while enacting 
regressive policies. The use of color-evasive frames makes these policy actions appear reasonable 
and logical, distancing the bills from association with overt racism.  

This study has limitations in terms of generalizability given that the discourse we studied was 
limited to a very specific context (the Texas senate subcommittee on higher education). However, 
we believe that this research provides granular insight into discursive processes being carried out 
throughout the nation. Three of the five invited witnesses are not from Texas, and the anti-DEI 
movement has been coordinated through a national network of operatives which share bill text and 
talking points (Confessore, 2024). Future research might explore the consistency of these findings 
across states. Additionally, researchers might explore how denials of racism are employed in other 
policy contexts such as school board meetings or university statements on CRT or DEI.  

We also recognize that insights from scholars specializing in anti-blackness can bring 
additional theoretical insights to the use of Black witnesses in race-based legislative contexts. Given 
our positionalities and expertise, we did not choose this framework but believe future research is 
needed to identify the ways anti-blackness is present and operationalized in the fight against CRT 
and DEI. 



Of DEI and denials  21 
 

These findings contribute to emerging literature on racial ideologies underlying the current 
onslaught of legislation against racial equity efforts in education. Our findings specifically contribute 
to the role of discursive strategies in enacting racist ideology and means for disrupting these 
strategies. This contribution may inform policy actors interested in combatting the legitimation of 
racism. Although we cannot generalize our findings outside this specific case, we suspect we are 
documenting a phenomenon that is occurring nationwide, particularly given the national 
coordination of attacks on CRT and DEI (Confessore, 2024; CRT Forward, n.d.). Just as the attack 
on diversity spilled over from K-12 to higher education, we have not seen the end of racist 
legislative attacks on education, either in Texas or nationally. Documenting and exploring the denials 
of racism used in this very specific case, how they reinforce color-evasive racism, and the strategies 
of resistance used against them, equips scholars and advocates to recognizes these same patterns in 
the next legislative session and in legislative attacks fifty years from now. 

Acknowledgements  

The authors would like to acknowledge the thoughtful feedback of Dominique Baker, who served as 
a discussant, and session participants at ASHE 2023.  

References 

Annamma, S. A., Jackson, D. D., & Morrison, D. (2017). Conceptualizing color-evasiveness: Using 
dis/ability critical race theory to expand a color-blind racial ideology in education and 
society. Race Ethnicity and Education, 20(2), 147-162. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2016.1248837 

Beaver, D., & Stanley, J. (2023). The politics of language. Princeton University Press. 
https://doi.org/10.1353/book.107028 

Bell, D. (2018). Faces at the bottom of the well: The permanence of racism. Hachette UK. 
Bonilla-Silva, E. (2017). Racism without racists: Color-blind racism and the persistence of racial inequality in the 

United States. Rowman & Littlefield. 
Bradner, E. (2023, January 17). Texas Gov. Greg Abbott previews push for school choice and property tax cuts in 

third inaugural address. CNN. https://www.cnn.com/2023/01/17/politics/greg-abbott-
inaugural-address-school-choice-property-tax/index.html 

Brantlinger, E., Jimenez, R., Klingner, J., Pugach, M., & Richardson, V. (2005). Qualitative studies in 
special education. Exceptional Children, 71(2), 195–207. 

Burch, A. D. S. (2023, May 29). Texas lawmakers pass ban on D.E.I. programs at state universities. 
The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/29/us/texas-dei-program-
ban.html  

Capper, C. A. (2018). Organizational theory for equity and diversity: Leading integrated, socially just education. 
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100205 

Chapman, T. K. (2023). Censorship? Indoctrination? Erasure? Critical race theory in teacher education [Invited 
speaker session]. AERA Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL. 

Confessore, N. (2024, January 20). ‘America is under attack’: Inside the anti-D.E.I. crusade. The New 
York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/01/20/us/dei-woke-claremont-
institute.html 

CRT Forward. (n.d.). CRT Forward Tracking Project. Retrieved August 26, 2023, from 
https://crtforward.law.ucla.edu/map/  

https://doi.org/10.1080/13613324.2016.1248837
https://doi.org/10.1353/book.107028
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/29/us/texas-dei-program-ban.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/29/us/texas-dei-program-ban.html
https://doi.org/10.1177/001440290507100205
https://crtforward.law.ucla.edu/map/


Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 32 No. 77  22 

 
Dan Patrick [@DanPatrick]. (2022, February 15). I will not stand by and let looney Marxist UT professors 

poison the minds of young students with Critical Race [link attached] [Tweet]. Twitter. 
https://twitter.com/DanPatrick/status/1493694009600053250 

Donato, R., & Hanson, J. (2012). Legally white, socially “Mexican”: The politics of de jure and de 
facto school segregation in the American Southwest. Harvard Educational Review, 82(2), 202–
225. https://doi.org/10.17763/haer.82.2.a562315u72355106 

Embrick, D., Carter, J. S., Lippard, C., & Thakore, B. (2020). Capitalism, racism, and Trumpism: 
Whitelash and the politics of oppression. Fast Capitalism, 17(1), 203–224. 
https://doi.org/10.32855/fcapital.202001.012  

Emerson, R. M., Fretz, R. I., & Shaw, L. L. (2011). Writing ethnographic fieldnotes. University of Chicago 
Press. https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226206868.001.0001 

Fairclough, N., & Wodak, R. (1997). Critical discourse analysis. In T. A. Van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as 
social interaction (Vol. 2, pp. 258–284). SAGE Publications, Inc. 

Felix, E. R., & Trinidad, A. (2020). The decentralization of race: Tracing the dilution of racial equity 
in educational policy. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 33(4), 465–490. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2019.1681538 

Garces, L. M. (2020). The false notion of “race-neutrality”: How legal battles in higher education 
undermine racial equity. Change: The Magazine of Higher Learning, 52(2), 51–55. 
https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2020.1732778  

Given, L. M. (2008). Critical discourse analysis. In The SAGE encyclopedia of qualitative research methods 
(pp. 145–148). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781412963909 

Gretzinger, E., & Hicks, M. (2024). Tracking higher ed’s dismantling of DEI. The Chronicle of Higher 
Education. https://www.chronicle.com/article/tracking-higher-eds-dismantling-of-dei  

Harper, S. (2023). Racism denial: What is it and where does it come from? [Master Class]. Master Class 
Series: Science Denial and Racism Denial, USC Rossier School of Education. 
https://rossier.usc.edu/usc-rossier-master-class  

Hazel, M. (2023). Under the radar: Legislative intent to silence Critical Race Theory [West Chester 
University]. https://digitalcommons.wcupa.edu/all_doctoral/196/ 

Hernández, T. K. (2023). Can CRT save DEI: Workplace diversity, equity & inclusion in the shadow 
of anti-affirmative action. Available at SSRN:  https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4666156 

Howerton, G. (2024). Denying racial animus: Political discourse in Arizona anti-ethnic studies 
legislation. Discourse & Society, 35(6), 774-790. https://doi.org/10.1177/09579265241245131 

Jones, V. A., & Briscoe, K. L. (2023). Upholding Whiteness through legislation: A critical discourse analysis of 
attempts to ban critical race theory [Paper session]. AERA Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL. 

Justice, B. (2023). Schooling as a White good. History of Education Quarterly, 63(2), 154–178. 
https://doi.org/10.1017/heq.2023.7  

Karabel, J. (2006). The chosen: The hidden history of admission and exclusion at Harvard, Yale, and Princeton. 
Houghton Mifflin Harcourt. 

Knox, L. (2023, April 7). Anti-CRT measures exploded last year, report finds. Inside Higher Ed. 
https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2023/04/07/anti-crt-measures-exploded-last-
year-report-finds  

Ladson-Billings, G. (2000). Racialized discourses and ethnic epistemologies. In N. K. Denzin & Y. S. 
Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research, (2nd ed., pp. 257–277). Sage Publications, Inc.. 

Lieutenant Governor of Texas Office. (2023, February 13). Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick announces top 30 
priorities for the 2023 legislative session [Web page]. https://www.ltgov.texas.gov/2023/02/13/lt-
gov-dan-patrick-announces-top-30-priorities-for-the-2023-legislative-session/  

https://doi.org/10.32855/fcapital.202001.012
https://doi.org/10.7208/chicago/9780226206868.001.0001
https://doi.org/10.1080/09518398.2019.1681538
https://doi.org/10.1080/00091383.2020.1732778
https://www.chronicle.com/article/tracking-higher-eds-dismantling-of-dei
https://rossier.usc.edu/usc-rossier-master-class
https://digitalcommons.wcupa.edu/all_doctoral/196/
https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4666156
https://doi.org/10.1177/09579265241245131
https://doi.org/10.1017/heq.2023.7
https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2023/04/07/anti-crt-measures-exploded-last-year-report-finds
https://www.insidehighered.com/quicktakes/2023/04/07/anti-crt-measures-exploded-last-year-report-finds
https://www.ltgov.texas.gov/2023/02/13/lt-gov-dan-patrick-announces-top-30-priorities-for-the-2023-legislative-session/
https://www.ltgov.texas.gov/2023/02/13/lt-gov-dan-patrick-announces-top-30-priorities-for-the-2023-legislative-session/


Of DEI and denials  23 
 

Matias, C. E. (2023). Hysteria, hypermania, & hullabaloo: How white emotionalities manufactures 
fear of critical race theory & teaching. Thresholds in Education, 46(1). 

McGee, K. (2022, February 18). Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick proposes ending university tenure to combat 
critical race theory. The Texas Tribune. https://www.texastribune.org/2022/02/18/dan-
patrick-texas-tenure-critical-race-theory/ 

Meehan, K., Friedman, J., Baêta, S., & Magnusson. (2023). Banned in the USA: The mounting pressure to 
censor. https://pen.org/report/book-bans-pressure-to-censor/ 

Miller, R., Liu, K., & Ball, A. F. (2023). Misunderstanding the campaign against CRT: Absurdity and 
White Supremacy in attacks on teaching and teacher education. Thresholds in Education, 46(1), 
139-156. 

Miles, M. B., Huberman, A. M., & Saldana, J. (2014). Qualitative data analysis: A methods sourcebook. 
SAGE Publications. 

Natanson, H., Morse, C. E., Narayanswamy, A., & Brause, C. (2022). An explosion of culture war 
laws is changing schools. Here’s how. The Washington Post. 
https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2022/10/18/education-laws-culture-war/ 

Newman, I., & Houchins, D. E. (2018). Conceptualizing mixed methods questions in special 
education research. Research in the Schools, 25(2), 23–33. 

Noboa-Rios, A. I. (2019). The story of Latinos and education in American history. Peter Lang. 
https://doi.org/10.3726/b14394 

Omi, M., & Wynant, H. (2014). Racial formation in the United States (3rd ed.). Routledge. 
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203076804 

Onwuegbuzie, A., & Collins, K. (2017). The role of sampling in mixed methods-research. Kölner 
Zeitschrift Für Soziologie & Sozialpsychologie, 69. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-017-0455-0 

Paltridge, B., & Hyland, D. K. (2012). Discourse analysis: An introduction. Bloomsbury Publishing. 
https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350934290 

Reisigl, M., & Wodak, R. (2000). Discourse and discrimination: Rhetorics of racism and asntisemitism. 
Routledge. https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203993712 

San Miguel, G., & Donato, R. (2009). Latino education in twentieth-century America. In E. G. 
Murillo, S. A. Villenas, R. Trinidad Galvan, J. Sánchez Muñoz, C. Martínez, & M. Machado-
Casas (Eds.), Handbook of Latinos in education: Theory, research and practice. Routledge. 
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203866078.ch3  

Sawchuk, S. (2021, May 18). What is critical race theory, and why is it under attack? Education Week.  
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/what-is-critical-race-theory-and-why-is-it-under-
attack/2021/05. 

Schwartz, S. (2023, June 13). Map: Where critical race theory is under attack. Education Week. 
https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/map-where-critical-race-theory-is-under-
attack/2021/06. 

Scussel, E. C., & Norris, J. E. (2023). “That sounds scary, let's ban it:” Analyzing manufactured 
ignorance & the attack on critical race theory in K-12 schools. Thresholds in Education, 46(1). 

Solorzano, D. G. (2023). Censorship? Indoctrination? Erasure? Critical race theory and teacher education 
[Invited speaker session]. AERA Annual Meeting, Chicago, IL. 

Superville, D. R. 2023, 26 January. Divisive politics are harming schools, district leaders say. 
Education Week. Accessed January 27, 2023 
from https://www.edweek.org/leadership/divisive-politics-are-harming-schools-district-
leaders-say/2023/01 

The Texas Senate. (n.d.). Senate audio/video archive – 88th session. Retrieved October 19, 2023, from 
https://senate.texas.gov/av-archive.php 

https://www.texastribune.org/2022/02/18/dan-patrick-texas-tenure-critical-race-theory/
https://www.texastribune.org/2022/02/18/dan-patrick-texas-tenure-critical-race-theory/
https://doi.org/10.3726/b14394
https://doi.org/10.1007/s11577-017-0455-0
https://doi.org/10.5040/9781350934290
https://doi.org/10.4324/9780203866078.ch3
https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/map-where-critical-race-theory-is-under-attack/2021/06
https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/map-where-critical-race-theory-is-under-attack/2021/06
https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/map-where-critical-race-theory-is-under-attack/2021/06
https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/map-where-critical-race-theory-is-under-attack/2021/06
https://www.edweek.org/policy-politics/map-where-critical-race-theory-is-under-attack/2021/06
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/divisive-politics-are-harming-schools-district-leaders-say/2023/01
https://www.edweek.org/leadership/divisive-politics-are-harming-schools-district-leaders-say/2023/01


Education Policy Analysis Archives Vol. 32 No. 77  24 

 
van Dijk, T. A. (1992). Discourse and the denial of racism. Discourse & Society, 3(1), 87–118. 

https://doi.org/10.1177/0957926592003001005 
van Dijk, T. A. (1997). The study of discourse. In T. A. van Dijk (Ed.), Discourse as structure and process 

(Vol. 1, pp. 1–34). SAGE Publications, Inc. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446221884.n1 
van Dijk, T. A. (2011). Discourse studies: A multidisciplinary introduction (2nd ed.). SAGE Publications 

Ltd. https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446289068 
van Dijk, T. A. (2015). Critical discourse analysis. In D. Tannen, H. E. Hamilton, & D. Schiffrin 

(Eds.), The handbook of discourse analysis (pp. 466–485). John Wiley & Sons. 
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118584194.ch22 

Wodak, R., & Meyer, M. (2001). Methods of critical discourse analysis. SAGE Publications. 
https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857028020 

 

About the Authors 

Lauren Mena Shook 
The University of Texas at Austin  
lshook@utep.edu 
https://orcid.org/ 0000-0001-8830-1403 
Lauren Mena Shook is a postdoctoral fellow at the Diana Natalicio Institute for Hispanic Student 
Success at the University of Texas at El Paso. Her research agenda centers the critical question of 
who belongs in education, examining how discourse, policy, and practice shape inclusion and 
exclusion within educational systems. 
 
Lizeth I. Lizárraga-Dueñas 
The University of Texas at Austin 

lizethlizarraga@utexas.edu 
https://orcid.org/ 0000-0002-4411-1322 
Lizeth I. Lizárraga-Dueñas is a Ph.D. student in the Education Policy and Planning program at the 
University of Texas at Austin. Her research interests focus on issues of educational equity and 
opportunity for culturally and linguistically diverse students and families in K-12. 
 

 

education policy analysis archives 
Volume 32 Number 77  December 3, 2024 ISSN 1068-2341 

 

 Readers are free to copy, display, distribute, and adapt this article, as long as 
the work is attributed to the author(s) and Education Policy Analysis 
Archives, the changes are identified, and the same license applies to the 

derivative work. More details of this Creative Commons license are available at 
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/. EPAA is published by the Mary Lou Fulton 
Teachers College at Arizona State University. Articles are indexed in CIRC (Clasificación Integrada 
de Revistas Científicas, Spain), DIALNET (Spain), Directory of Open Access Journals, EBSCO 
Education Research Complete, ERIC, Education Full Text (H.W. Wilson), QUALIS A1 (Brazil), 
SCImago Journal Rank, SCOPUS, SOCOLAR (China). 

https://doi.org/10.4135/9781446221884.n1
https://doi.org/10.1002/9781118584194.ch22
https://doi.org/10.4135/9780857028020
https://orcid.org/%200000-0001-8830-1403
https://orcid.org/%200000-0002-4411-1322
https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0/
http://www.doaj.org/


Of DEI and denials  25 
 

About the Editorial Team: https://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/epaa/about/editorialTeam 

Please send errata notes to Jeanne M. Powers at jeanne.powers@asu.edu  

 

 

 

https://epaa.asu.edu/ojs/index.php/epaa/about/editorialTeam
mailto:mailtojeanne.powers@asu.edu